Siu Sun Yao1, Ehtasham Qureshi, Mark V Sherrid, Farooq A Chaudhry. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York 10025, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to define appropriate parameters for risk stratification and prognosis in patients undergoing stress echocardiography. BACKGROUND: Stress echocardiography is an established technique for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. However, current data on risk stratification of patients undergoing stress echocardiography are limited. METHODS: We evaluated 1,500 patients (59 +/- 13 years old; 51% male) undergoing stress echocardiography (34% with treadmill exercise and 66% with dobutamine). Resting left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) and regional wall motion were assessed by the consensus of two echocardiographers. Follow-up (mean 2.7 +/- 1.0 years) for confirmed non-fatal myocardial infarction (n = 31) and cardiac death (n = 44) were performed. RESULTS: By univariate analysis, both the peak wall motion score index (WMSI) (p < 0.0001) and EF (p < 0.0001) were significant predictors of cardiac events. Peak WMSI effectively risk stratified patients into low (0.9%/year), intermediate (3.1%/year), and high (5.2%/year) risk groups (p < 0.0001). A threshold of 45% EF provided further risk stratification of all WMSI groups. By multivariate logistic regression analysis, peak WMSI (relative risk [RR] 2.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0 to 4.4; p = 0.04) and EF (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.9 to 1.0; p = 0.01) were both predictors of cardiac events. CONCLUSIONS: Stress echocardiography yields prognostic information for risk stratification of patients with known or suspected ischemic heart disease. A normal stress echocardiographic study (peak WMSI = 1.0) confers a benign prognosis (0.9%/year cardiac event rate). Peak WMSI >1.7 and EF < or =45% are independent markers of patients at high risk of an adverse clinical outcome.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to define appropriate parameters for risk stratification and prognosis in patients undergoing stress echocardiography. BACKGROUND: Stress echocardiography is an established technique for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease. However, current data on risk stratification of patients undergoing stress echocardiography are limited. METHODS: We evaluated 1,500 patients (59 +/- 13 years old; 51% male) undergoing stress echocardiography (34% with treadmill exercise and 66% with dobutamine). Resting left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) and regional wall motion were assessed by the consensus of two echocardiographers. Follow-up (mean 2.7 +/- 1.0 years) for confirmed non-fatal myocardial infarction (n = 31) and cardiac death (n = 44) were performed. RESULTS: By univariate analysis, both the peak wall motion score index (WMSI) (p < 0.0001) and EF (p < 0.0001) were significant predictors of cardiac events. Peak WMSI effectively risk stratified patients into low (0.9%/year), intermediate (3.1%/year), and high (5.2%/year) risk groups (p < 0.0001). A threshold of 45% EF provided further risk stratification of all WMSI groups. By multivariate logistic regression analysis, peak WMSI (relative risk [RR] 2.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0 to 4.4; p = 0.04) and EF (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.9 to 1.0; p = 0.01) were both predictors of cardiac events. CONCLUSIONS: Stress echocardiography yields prognostic information for risk stratification of patients with known or suspected ischemic heart disease. A normal stress echocardiographic study (peak WMSI = 1.0) confers a benign prognosis (0.9%/year cardiac event rate). Peak WMSI >1.7 and EF < or =45% are independent markers of patients at high risk of an adverse clinical outcome.
Authors: E Maffei; S Seitun; C Martini; A Aldrovandi; T Arcadi; A Clemente; G Messalli; R Malagò; A Weustink; N Mollet; K Nieman; D Ardissino; P de Feyter; G Krestin; F Cademartiri Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2010-10-06 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: J D Schuijf; D Poldermans; L J Shaw; J W Jukema; H J Lamb; A de Roos; W Wijns; E E van der Wall; J J Bax Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Edgar Argulian; Jose Ricardo F Po; Seth Uretsky; Kiran K Kommaraju; Suketukumar Patel; Vikram Agarwal; Randy Cohen; Alan Rozanski Journal: J Nucl Cardiol Date: 2016-02-24 Impact factor: 5.952
Authors: Leslee J Shaw; Daniel S Berman; Michael H Picard; Matthias G Friedrich; Raymond Y Kwong; Gregg W Stone; Roxy Senior; James K Min; Rory Hachamovitch; Marielle Scherrer-Crosbie; Jennifer H Mieres; Thomas H Marwick; Lawrence M Phillips; Farooq A Chaudhry; Patricia A Pellikka; Piotr Slomka; Andrew E Arai; Ami E Iskandrian; Timothy M Bateman; Gary V Heller; Todd D Miller; Eike Nagel; Abhinav Goyal; Salvador Borges-Neto; William E Boden; Harmony R Reynolds; Judith S Hochman; David J Maron; Pamela S Douglas Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-06
Authors: Nripesh Parajuli; Allen Lu; Kevinminh Ta; John Stendahl; Nabil Boutagy; Imran Alkhalil; Melissa Eberle; Geng-Shi Jeng; Maria Zontak; Matthew O'Donnell; Albert J Sinusas; James S Duncan Journal: Med Image Anal Date: 2019-04-18 Impact factor: 8.545